Arctic melt season over, leaving behind more ice than recent years

After a stunning melt in 2012, this year is only the sixth lowest on record.

After a brief time-out while its servers were protected from the flooding in Colorado, the National Snow and Ice Data Center's (NSIDC) website was back this week, just in time for its scientists to declare that the 2013 melt season had come to a close. If you're a fan of ice, it was a good year for you. After a truly staggering ice loss last year, this summer's melt was nowhere near as severe, and in fact clusters in with the conditions that were typical at the end of last decade.

Enlarge/ This year's melt, shown in light blue, is about the same as the one seen in 2009, making for a sharp contrast with last year's record.

If you've been following this for several years, you should note that the grey area, which shows two standard deviations from the average, is broader than it has been in years past. That's because the NSIDC has changed its baseline, extending it a decade to cover 1981-2010. That means it now extends into the era where ice has been shrinking rapidly. That broadens the distribution of the data, thereby increasing the standard deviation. This has the effect of making everything look a bit less severe, or a bit closer to "normal" conditions.

The reason for the greater retention of ice is pretty simple: cooler weather. In contrast to past years, when warm air parked over parts of the Arctic, this year saw a blob of cool air protecting the ice. Just about anything other than a near-total wipeout would have looked good compared to 2012, but the cool air has pushed 2013 down to the sixth-lowest ice extent on record. That's not to say that the downward trend in Arctic ice has been reversed (as you can see in the graph below), but it does suggest that the huge loss in 2012 hasn't pushed the Arctic into a completely different behavior pattern.

Enlarge/ Trends in sea ice for the last few decades, as measured in July.

Meanwhile, at the other pole, sea ice is reaching its annual maximum. The dynamics of Antarctic ice are completely different, as it's partly fed by the ice sheets of the continent's interior and very exposed to the often violent Southern Ocean. Because of these different dynamics, there has been little change in the seasonal changes since we've been monitoring, with all years clustered tightly around the average. Nevertheless, this year saw a weaker melt lead to a new record high for this winter's freeze, barely edging out last year.

We've seen at least two different explanations for why Antarctic ice may be growing even as the continent nearby warms. If the scientific community reaches a consensus, we'll let you know.

Difference between climate and weather. What is important is the long term trend and that is measured in decades not years.

That being said last year the " al gore global warming is killing us" team didn't keep that in mind as well, so it's only fair when they get a bit of their medicine back.

Every goddamn hurricane and especially warm day and we have to hear the global warming will kill us refrain again. Which is especially bullshit since there doesn't seem to be a clear correlation between warming and extreme weather.

So if both sides would remember that and shut the fuck up for five minutes I would be a happier person.

We've seen at least two different explanations for why Antarctic ice may be growing even as the continent nearby warms. If the scientific community reaches a consensus, we'll let you know.

Not even a one-line throwaway comment as to what those are?

There are multiple theories, including a shift in polar winds pushing ice around, creating gaps that promote re-freezing, or freshwater melt off the continent's ice shelf floating at the surface promoting increased refreezing, or increased snowfall.

Difference between climate and weather. What is important is the long term trend and that is measured in decades not years.

That being said last year the " al gore global warming is killing us" team didn't keep that in mind as well, so it's only fair when they get a bit of their medicine back.

Every goddamn hurricane and especially warm day and we have to hear the global warming will kill us refrain again. Which is especially bullshit since there doesn't seem to be a clear correlation between warming and extreme weather.

So if both sides would remember that and shut the fuck up for five minutes I would be a happier person.

As annoying as it is to have science turned into politics... I'd like to point out that the article and the comments so far have not said anything about al gore or the politics behind global warming. Before your post of course.

Difference between climate and weather. What is important is the long term trend and that is measured in decades not years.

unfortunately the long-term trend is down down down too.

I think his point was that you can't make snap judgements based on daily or even yearly weather, what matters is what is happening over longer and more significant timeframes.

well, quite. and i was pointing out that things are aren't exactly heartening over longer and more significant timeframes. what would have been a record low ice extent less than a decade ago makes for a fairly average year now.

Maybe you should read the whole article, and not just the title, before unleashing your snarkish wisdom - last sentence in the article:

Quote:

Given how little is known variations in solar activity, it would be foolish to rely on a Maunder Minimum to offset the rise in global temperatures due to greenhouse emissions.

What's also funny is that the only persons who predicted "that 2013 would see an upsurge in solar activity and geomagnetic storms" were the Nostradamus/catastrophe types, not scientists, so I don't really see why The Times of India saw it fit to make an article on it in the first place.

the cool air has pushed 2013 down to the sixth-lowest ice extent on record

This is weirdly phrased and very confusing: It's summer, ice is melting down at that time, so the cool air is not pushing down, but up. Something like "even so, the cool air could not prevent the ice cover to reach its sixth-lowest ice extent on record" would be more appropriate. Any more data about this "cool air", like comparative 2012-2013 air surface and water temperatures?

Also, what's "on record"? Since the satellites in the 1950s, or the commercial and scientific shipping expeditions of the 1850-70s? Graph or table of the records would help convince some: without it, you are giving them leeway for interpretation.

When I think about all the stupid climate change skeptic articles that posted that famous Sept. 9th 2012/2013 sea ice extent comparative picture and claimed "See! It was all an hoax, there is no global warming!"I was a bit conservative, and personally bet on 7th lowest record, but, you're not cool, air!

What this ice shows is that the absolute certainty of the "man made global warming theory" is false. Every time there is an doom global warming deadline, from the 70's until now, it hasn't proven true.

You need to read the article again, this time without the political filter glasses on. It supports neither a claim that we're all doomed or that everything is perfectly peachy.

[This blog has a chart, although it only goes back to 1980. The blog is a little snarky though

Totally denying climate change, not just snarky or skeptic.Yes, I have seen this chart in the Daily Mail last week, but it seems totally wrong. For one thing, 2012 was the lowest or one of the lowest ice extent records, but it shows in the high blue in that chart. If anything, it should be in the bottom red at a similar level as 2007, so I'm guessing the chart is some manipulation of figures that is totally irrelevant to the discussion.

I also saw ice extent charts dating as far back as 1870, from Uni. of Illinois, I think. But it's not for me that I need the information, it's for skeptic readers I might refer to the article. The table of the ten lowest ice extent records should be Annex I in the Appendix to this article!